ADDIE IRENE CATLETT
v.
CHARLES H. CHESTNUT, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF B. S. CATLETT, DECEASED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a motion for rehearing and a motion for leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis. The court found that the alleged attempt at jury tampering was not sufficiently proven to have influenced the jury and therefore did not warrant the extraordinary relief sought.
The court held that the plaintiff in error failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged attempt at jury tampering reached or influenced the jury. Therefore, leave to apply for the writ was denied.
“Writ of error coram nobis is not allowed unless error of fact appears with reasonable certainty.”
Establishes the standard for granting a writ of error coram nobis.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error sought leave to apply for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that a non-party may have attempted to influence a juror during…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
This case comes before us on extraordinary motion for rehearing and amended motion for leave to apply to the Circuit Court for writ of error coram nobis; amended response to such action and motion to dismiss and motion to strike plaintiff in error’s motions.
The extraordinary motion for rehearing is denied because it presents nothing which may or could properly be considered which has not already been fully considered by this Court and determined adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error.
The motion to grant leave to plaintiff in error to apply to the court below for a writ of error coram nobis is denied .because on consideration of the whole record presented a case which warrants the issuance of such writ is not made prima facie to appear.
The most that the record may be said to make to appear is that a person not a party to the suit and not of counsel for any party to the suit may have committed or rather attempted to commit embracery with one of the jurors engaged in the trial of the cause, but the record fails to show *638even prima facie that such attempt resulted in reaching or in influencing the jury or any juror engaged in such trial.
“Writ of error coram nobis is not allowed unless error of fact appears with reasonable certainty. Supreme Court granting leave to file petition for writ of error coram nobis constitutes mandate that lower court allow writ so that question of fact may be determined.” Chambers, et al., v. State, 117 Fla. 642, 158 Sou. 153.
No fact being made to appear which existed at the time of and during trial which fact was unknown to the court and which fact, had it then been known to the court, would have precluded the entry of the judgment complained of, having been made to appear with reasonable certainty, the motion for leave to file petition as hereinbefore stated is denied.
The mandate heretofore recalled shall now be transmitted to the court below.
So ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co., 147 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1941)…Fla. 927, 108 So. 671; Washington v. State, 92 Fla. 740, 110 So. 259; Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630; Jennings v. Pope, 101 Fla. 1476, 136 So. 471; Chambers v. State, 113 Fla. 786, 152 So. 437, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153; Catlett v. Chestnut, 120 Fla. 636, 163 So. 26; Leavitt v. State, 116 Fla. 738, 156 So. 704; Jarvis v. Chapman, 118 Fla. 577, 159 S. 282; Skipper v. Shoemaker, 118 Fla. 867, 160 So. 357; Skipper v. State, 128 Fla. 362, 174 So. 863; Lee v. State, 129 Fla. 857, 176 So. 764; Jones v. St…
Authorities Cited
- Isiah (Izell) Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1934)